Skip to main content

About your Search

20130225
20130225
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. we are reading about a $3 billion cut in the military health care system. the pentagon could be restructuring contracts. what do you want to say about those areas? guest: training is going to be cut. dod has said only unit preparing to deploy will be training. everybody else in the air force and navy, the planes will be grounded. they will take the money they would have used to do the training and shifted into the war account to pay for afghanistan. try care -- tricare is what you mentioned. people will still get benefits can be seen by doctors. host: a big fight in washington over the defense aspect. what else should we know about the defense area? guest: there will be an impact. there are two sides of sequestration. there is the side that we need to cut federal spending and defense needs to play a role. talking to people in the pentagon, a lot of them would agree with that. the problem is they are halfway through the year. they have not been preparing for this at all. they will have to squeeze all of these cuts into a six-month period. the next six months, it is implemented
news. it is bad news on the domestic side and on the pentagon side. and it's not to be taken lightly on the domestic side. every single program that people count on is going to be cut across the board, 13%. >> that's social security. >> that's medicare. >> that's medicaid. >> that's headstart. >> that's -- it's -- it is so bad that the congressional budget office said: this sequester will take us not right away but probably by the end of the year from recovery into recession. back into recession. so this thing, here you go, you do this. the economy is going to tank. i was in the briefing room friday at the whitehouse when secretary ray lahood came in secretary of transportation, ray lahood, talking about just one other aspect of that, of the sequester that we can expect and that is in air travel. the secretary mentioned they have no flexibility in this. they have to cut so much and the only wake they can cut with so many employees they've got is to make -- is to require some of them to take a furlough. most of their employees are air traffic controllers.
need a department of labor. even the pentagon, by the way, i'm for a strong military, no doubt about it, there are million americans who don't wear uniform or civilians work for the pentagon. the pentagon is a big bureaucracy. the point i would make, martha. private businesses did this during the recession. they sucked in their stomach, they tightened their belt. they got rid of waste in their budget and why can't government do that? martha: you've been saying it. rick perry tried to do the list you did. things didn't work out very well for him. you did it masterfully. you're not seeing that list from republicans, are you? >> well, i know, --. martha: elected republicans in washington? >> you know what, martha? paul ryan has a budget that passed congress the last two years and that has some pretty specific cuts. you and i might not agree with everything on the list --. martha: but i'm saying average person on the street what would they cut, they would not be able to do that. we have to go. >> everybody loves santa claus. that is why we have a problem and the debt, right? martha: thank y
it will lead to layoffs for hundreds of thousands of pentagon employees, first responders, airport security personnel and thousands of other federal workers. and joining me now to talk about it, south carolina senator lindsey graham. senator, it's great to have you (applause). >> and the sequestration has become such a political theater over the last few days and a lot of the republicans are saying, let's just let the president have it and see what he can do with it. is that a good idea? what do you propose to do -- or to do about sequestering? >> well, number one, the reason it's a bad idea, it did he have straits tdevastates the military. and this idea that republicans have of let it go into effect and watch the president fix it is really not leadership. don't you think that's what's wrong with washington? i thought we were the party of fiscal responsibility. the republican house passed a replacement for sequestration and our democratic friends are going to raise taxes which is a bad idea. i think that republican senators should put a plan on the table rather than turning the government o
heading up the pentagon and obviously israel will want our help if they find themselves in an armed conflict with iran. what are the stakes for israel in seeing hagel? president obama is going to set that policy not hagel, right? but he's got some independent power. >> well, look, the question is, what kind of message are we sending the enemies of the united states which are also the enemies of all person liberal democracies, including our ally in the middle east on the front line on the war of islamist terrorism. last week hamas in its newspaper published an article, saying that a confirmation of hagel of secretary of defense would be in its favor and reduce the likelihood of the united states and iran getting nuclear weapons and reduce the united states supporting israel from defeating hamas and this is from a designated terrorist group and beyond that, is he an effective leader? does he have the credibility to reach across the aisle and do what he says he's going to do with the republicans, for example? >> i'm sure he would have rather not had the help from hamas. thank you for y
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)